Obama and Marxism: A Legitimate Question II By Victor Morawski When dealing with the increasingly salient question of whether Barack Obama is, indeed, a Marxist, it is important to note that in recognizing him as one, we are not thereby claiming that he has accepted, or does now accept, the whole of Marx’s program. Nor is it necessary. I have seen one blogger attempt to defend him against this charge by observing that, as far as he knew, Obama was not out there advocating the violent peoples’ uprising and overthrow of the government prescribed by Marx as the cure for Capitalism’s ills, so the charge must be false. As it is with many philosophical theories, there are varieties of Marxism. One does not have to accept every principle Marx espoused to qualify as a Marxist. Neither does rejecting any one of them necessarily get one “off the hook” from this charge. As near as we can tell, Barack Obama’s own place in the Marxist landscape seems to that of a New Left, Neo-Marxist. This view expands traditional Marxism slightly by adding to it “Max Weber’s broader understanding of social inequality…to Marxist philosophy…” The assumption is that unequal distribution of wealth produces such social inequality, because “the lack of wealth in certain areas prohibits … people from obtaining the same housing, health care, etc. as the wealthy in societies where access to these goods depends on wealth.” Obviously, wealth redistribution becomes a paramount concern for this variety of Marxism. A key indicator of the extent to which Barack Obama bought into the views of his early Marxist mentors is the degree to which he has written that he wanted to avoid “selling out” and “compromising” where, in addition to abandoning his true racial identity, these terms meant adopting as fair and legitimate American free-market Capitalism. The man Obama reverentially refers to simply as “Frank” in his memoirs (the Communist Frank Marshall Davis) warned Obama of this danger when he left Hawaii for Occidental College in Los Angeles. To “Frank,” college was nothing but, “An advanced degree in compromise.” (Dreams from My Father[Hereafter, Dreams], p. 97) There, “Frank” warned his willing protege, they would “train him” so good that he would start believing what he was told about, “equal opportunity and the American way.” When Obama arrived at college, he determined to “put distance” between himself and other black and multiracial students he met there who were willing to be “assimilated into the dominant culture” and “lose themselves in the crowd, America’s happy, faceless marketplace.”(Dreams, p. 99-100) So he says, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”(Dreams, p. 100) Those who believe that Barack Obama may have associated with radicals, but did not share any of their principles owe us an explanation for his ongoing attitude against selling out and compromising. If it doesn’t mean compromising his basically Marxist principles, what does it mean? Even after college when he took a conventional corporate job as a research assistant to help pay off his student loans, he said that he felt in it like a “spy behind enemy lines.”(Dreams, p. 134) He continued to show an awareness of this need to avoid any compromise with capitalism when he later contemplated attending Harvard Law School. There he says essentially, that he would learn the basics of the American Free Market System, but without buying into it. He writes, “I would learn about interest rates, corporate mergers, the legislative process; about the way businesses and banks were put together; how real estate ventures succeeded or failed.”(Dreams, p. 276) Such knowledge, he goes on, “would have compromised me before coming to Chicago.” But now, he would bring this knowledge back to Chicago to obey his father’s imagined command to help in his people’s struggle. Other men he admits he could “love but never emulate.” They all fell short of his father’s “lofty standards.”(Dreams, p. 220) Elsewhere, he notes, “most black folks weren’t like the father of my dreams.” They were too practical to live their own lives, “according to abstract ideals.”(Dreams, p. 278) And what sort of ideals were his father’s ideals? As a professional Marxist economist, his ideals were Marxist ideals. At this point the young Obama brings things full circle and makes an important connection with his father who had twenty-eight years earlier been faced with similar choices when he boarded a plane for America.”(Dreams, p. 277) As his father returned to Kenya to implement these ideals, so he would return to Chicago to do likewise. That ideal which his father championed most and which eventually cost him his government job in Kenya, was the Marxist ideal of the redistribution of wealth. The then vice president, Odinga, was

February 12, 2011 The Era of the Obama 'Blank Screen' is Over By Monte Kuligowski Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., a/k/a Barry Soetoro, appeared out of nowhere as a political Melchizedek with a mysterious and unknown past. Obama showed up on the national stage in 2004. His lofty speech at the Democratic National Convention instantly propelled him to celebrity status in the eyes of a star struck news media. At the time, Obama was employed as an Illinois state senator out of Chicago. During his career, the senator voted "present" approximately 130 times on controversial issues. No sooner than Obama became a U.S. senator he had more important things than Senate business to tend to: like running for president as an all-American moderate with a nice smile. Mr. Obama presented himself as a blank slate to the American public. A Real Clear Politics piece by Froma Harrop notes the way in which Obama saw himself relating to the public: What Obama really thinks should be done about health care and the terrorist threat remain secrets that his book [Audacity of Hope] does not unlock. His two years in the Senate certainly haven't revealed any bold policy ideas. This leave-them-guessing strategy slips out in the book's prologue. "I serve as a blank screen," Obama writes, "on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." He notifies readers that "my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete." Inasmuch as the press refused to vet and investigate Candidate Obama, he certainly was a "blank screen" to the uninformed in 2008. At first Obama became a "sort of God" to many, including Newsweek editor Evan Thomas. It's interesting that the liberal theological tendency of projecting views onto God of whatever happens to be desirable also applied to the new political messiah. If someone wanted a fiscal conservative, Obama was her man. If another wanted a socialist, Obama was his man. If someone wanted a sincere Christian, Obama was his man. If another wanted a humanist skeptic, Obama was her man. Onto the blank screen an image of Abraham Lincoln could be projected. If someone preferred FDR, no problem -- the screen was seemingly blank and the suit empty. But that was then. Mr. Obama's "treatment of the issues" (and his opponents) is no longer a mystery. The days of Obama as a "blank screen" are over. The "leave-them-guessing strategy" may have worked while campaigning, but not as many are still guessing about the identity of the real Obama. Yet, it's curious that Obama and his fans in the media still believe that the vehicle of the blank screen is operable. Time Magazine's recent photoshopped cover showing Ronald Reagan approvingly embracing Obama is such an example. Mr. Obama said that "people of vastly different political stripes [can] project their own views" onto him. Time's insinuation that Reagan would "love" Obama is not a projection of the Time Magazine editors -- for they are not conservatives. Time is simply acting as a facilitator. The magazine is saying to gullible conservatives and moderates: "hey, you can still project your political views onto Obama. Mr. Obama can even be Reagan, if you wish." We've witnessed Obama for two years ramming through radical, far-left appointments and bills by unscrupulous means, against the will of the electorate. In light of his brass-knuckles approach and leftist agenda, it's truly astonishing that the media somehow believe Obama can remain all things to all people. As a new president, Mr. Obama thought he could talk about spending cuts and "fiscal responsibility summits" while simultaneously burying the country in unprecedented debt and federal bureaucracy. Even more shocking is the fact that Obama continues to believe he can use doubletalk and smoke and mirrors. Mr. Obama recently stood before a crowd at the Chamber of Commerce, hoping that the audience might somehow view him as a blank screen. In the Chamber speech, Obama didn't use the "failure of capitalism" sound bite to explain the country's current financial mess. The president used the word "capitalism," but this time in a positive way. Obama went so far as to say that he shares a "deep, abiding belief in this country," and a "belief in the principles that have made America's economy the envy of the world." There was no talk about America being arrogant. There was no mention of America's small population selfishly using an unequal share of the earth's resources. Mr. Obama didn't touch on his fear that other countries do not approve of Americans driving their SUVs or eating as much as they want while keeping their homes at 72 degrees. As Mr. Obama went on to expound on the "principles" that made America great, the Chamber speech became noticeably creepy as the president demonstra